| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Your Special Friend" |
| Date: |
02 Oct 2003 02:06:34 PM |
| Object: |
Is it time to admit some lose in global trade? |
http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/editorial/6895363.htm
Posted on Tue, Sep. 30, 2003
Is it time to admit some lose in global trade?
By E.J. Dionne, Washington Post columnist.
WASHINGTON - Except for the saints in our midst, everyone has
prejudices, including the well-educated and well-to-do. But when
upscale folks have prejudices, they usually call them ideas,
convictions or principles.
So how can you tell when a principle is merely a prejudice? When
someone keeps making an argument even though the facts suggest it no
longer holds up.
It is time to ask whether the overwhelming support for free trade and
globalization among well-off, highly educated people is more a
prejudice rooted in their own self-interest or a matter of high
principle.
OK, maybe that's too harsh. So try this: Even if globalization made a
lot of sense during the buoyant 1990s, shouldn't the troubling
economic developments since 2000 force people to modify their views?
Is it not now undeniable that globalization has serious costs that are
not merely ``transition problems'' and that these costs are borne
disproportionately by certain parts of the country and the society?
Now, I don't want to be accused of prejudice myself, so let me
stipulate that most educated folks really believe on principle in free
trade. They can rely on reams of writing by intelligent economists to
support their view.
Moreover, no one likely to hold power in our country would return us
to the days of William McKinley and high tariff walls.
The globalizers are right when they argue that too many Americans are
now reliant on the global economy for such policies to work.
But it ought to be equally obvious that the globalizers in both
political parties were too carefree when they asserted in the 1990s
that, well, yes, there are ``losers'' from globalization, but there
are so many more ``winners'' that we really shouldn't worry.
Those who lost out in this grand process would eventually find their
footing, the argument went, and government could help them make the
transition.
By the way, where was all that help?
In any case the prophets of our bright future said the United States
shouldn't worry about ``old'' industries like steel or apparel. It
should worry about leading the way in all that is ``new'' and ``high
tech.''
Having grown up in Fall River, Mass., a place whose job base was once
rooted in the apparel industry, it has always struck me that writing
off an industry as ``old'' is a lot easier for people who never
depended on it.
Maybe that's an old economy prejudice on my part, especially since my
home town has been remarkably inventive in giving birth to new
enterprises.
Still, it's not a form of prejudice to cite the statistics showing
that the sharp decline in manufacturing jobs over the past few years
has been accompanied by a decline in overall family incomes.
Consider the Census Bureau's report for 2002 showing that U.S.
household incomes had declined for the third year in a row and that
the number of Americans living in poverty had increased by 1.7 million
in a year.
The old manufacturing states -- including Michigan, Illinois, Ohio and
Missouri -- were among those hit the hardest. (Politicians take note:
These are swing states.)
The economists reassure us that the poverty rate is a ``lagging''
indicator and that a robust recovery will start lifting people up
again. But will it?
Is it not just as plausible to worry that the flight of jobs to China
and elsewhere, courtesy of globalization, has combined with big
improvements in productivity to create an economy that leaves many of
our fellow citizens behind even in flush times?
The Institute for Supply Management, which keeps some of the best
numbers on manufacturing, pleased the stock market earlier this month
with a report showing that economic activity in manufacturing grew in
August, as it had in July.
But its manufacturing employment index actually fell and remained
below the 50 percent break-even point for job creation for the 35th
consecutive month.
If supporters of globalization really do hold principles and not
prejudices, they should admit that the facts make it increasingly
difficult to say that everything will eventually get better for
everyone, and that changes in the system will only make it worse.
Worse for whom exactly?
Our tax and social policies are supposed to respond to inequities as
they arise. But our current approach seems based mostly on begging
China to fix its currency and praying for 5 percent growth. Michigan,
as it sometimes has in the past, will just have to rely on a pass and
a prayer.
The evidence suggests that we're not in the New Economy anymore, but
in a New New Economy with problems that weren't supposed to arise.
The real lagging indicator is our economic thinking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dionne is a Washington Post columnist.
.
|
|
| User: "Tim Worstall" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it time to admit some lose in global trade? |
03 Oct 2003 02:58:27 AM |
|
|
(Your Special Friend) wrote in message news:<1214fb08.0310021106.3dc1079@posting.google.com>...
http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/editorial/6895363.htm
Posted on Tue, Sep. 30, 2003
Is it time to admit some lose in global trade?
No one ever said there weren't losers. The question is are there more
losers than winners. And the answer is no.
Free trade isn't that tough an idea to understand. If we all do what
we're best at, and swap around the results, then we'll be better off.
Put that way it's obvious isn't it ?
Tim Worstall
By E.J. Dionne, Washington Post columnist.
WASHINGTON - Except for the saints in our midst, everyone has
prejudices, including the well-educated and well-to-do. But when
upscale folks have prejudices, they usually call them ideas,
convictions or principles.
So how can you tell when a principle is merely a prejudice? When
someone keeps making an argument even though the facts suggest it no
longer holds up.
It is time to ask whether the overwhelming support for free trade and
globalization among well-off, highly educated people is more a
prejudice rooted in their own self-interest or a matter of high
principle.
OK, maybe that's too harsh. So try this: Even if globalization made a
lot of sense during the buoyant 1990s, shouldn't the troubling
economic developments since 2000 force people to modify their views?
Is it not now undeniable that globalization has serious costs that are
not merely ``transition problems'' and that these costs are borne
disproportionately by certain parts of the country and the society?
Now, I don't want to be accused of prejudice myself, so let me
stipulate that most educated folks really believe on principle in free
trade. They can rely on reams of writing by intelligent economists to
support their view.
Moreover, no one likely to hold power in our country would return us
to the days of William McKinley and high tariff walls.
The globalizers are right when they argue that too many Americans are
now reliant on the global economy for such policies to work.
But it ought to be equally obvious that the globalizers in both
political parties were too carefree when they asserted in the 1990s
that, well, yes, there are ``losers'' from globalization, but there
are so many more ``winners'' that we really shouldn't worry.
Those who lost out in this grand process would eventually find their
footing, the argument went, and government could help them make the
transition.
By the way, where was all that help?
In any case the prophets of our bright future said the United States
shouldn't worry about ``old'' industries like steel or apparel. It
should worry about leading the way in all that is ``new'' and ``high
tech.''
Having grown up in Fall River, Mass., a place whose job base was once
rooted in the apparel industry, it has always struck me that writing
off an industry as ``old'' is a lot easier for people who never
depended on it.
Maybe that's an old economy prejudice on my part, especially since my
home town has been remarkably inventive in giving birth to new
enterprises.
Still, it's not a form of prejudice to cite the statistics showing
that the sharp decline in manufacturing jobs over the past few years
has been accompanied by a decline in overall family incomes.
Consider the Census Bureau's report for 2002 showing that U.S.
household incomes had declined for the third year in a row and that
the number of Americans living in poverty had increased by 1.7 million
in a year.
The old manufacturing states -- including Michigan, Illinois, Ohio and
Missouri -- were among those hit the hardest. (Politicians take note:
These are swing states.)
The economists reassure us that the poverty rate is a ``lagging''
indicator and that a robust recovery will start lifting people up
again. But will it?
Is it not just as plausible to worry that the flight of jobs to China
and elsewhere, courtesy of globalization, has combined with big
improvements in productivity to create an economy that leaves many of
our fellow citizens behind even in flush times?
The Institute for Supply Management, which keeps some of the best
numbers on manufacturing, pleased the stock market earlier this month
with a report showing that economic activity in manufacturing grew in
August, as it had in July.
But its manufacturing employment index actually fell and remained
below the 50 percent break-even point for job creation for the 35th
consecutive month.
If supporters of globalization really do hold principles and not
prejudices, they should admit that the facts make it increasingly
difficult to say that everything will eventually get better for
everyone, and that changes in the system will only make it worse.
Worse for whom exactly?
Our tax and social policies are supposed to respond to inequities as
they arise. But our current approach seems based mostly on begging
China to fix its currency and praying for 5 percent growth. Michigan,
as it sometimes has in the past, will just have to rely on a pass and
a prayer.
The evidence suggests that we're not in the New Economy anymore, but
in a New New Economy with problems that weren't supposed to arise.
The real lagging indicator is our economic thinking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dionne is a Washington Post columnist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iguana" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it time to admit some lose in global trade? |
03 Oct 2003 06:35:23 PM |
|
|
<<No one ever said there weren't losers. The question is are there more
losers than winners. And the answer is no.
Free trade isn't that tough an idea to understand. If we all do what
we're best at, and swap around the results, then we'll be better off.
Put that way it's obvious isn't it ?>>
No. It's not what we are "BEST AT", it's what we are "CHEAPEST AT".
That is the problem. I have no problem competing against 3rd world
programmers in quality, I'm very good at what I do. It's doesn't matter
how good I am if my rent is $900 a month and my competition's rent
is $30 a month. And THAT is the problem. If we all lived the same
cost of living, what you said would be true, BUT we don't, so it isn't.
Iguana
"Tim Worstall" <tcw@2xtreme.net> wrote in message
news:825e2890.0310022358.c2da303@posting.google.com...
ybf@ziplip.com (Your Special Friend) wrote in message
news:<1214fb08.0310021106.3dc1079@posting.google.com>...
http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/editorial/6895363.htm
Posted on Tue, Sep. 30, 2003
Is it time to admit some lose in global trade?
No one ever said there weren't losers. The question is are there more
losers than winners. And the answer is no.
Free trade isn't that tough an idea to understand. If we all do what
we're best at, and swap around the results, then we'll be better off.
Put that way it's obvious isn't it ?
Tim Worstall
By E.J. Dionne, Washington Post columnist.
WASHINGTON - Except for the saints in our midst, everyone has
prejudices, including the well-educated and well-to-do. But when
upscale folks have prejudices, they usually call them ideas,
convictions or principles.
So how can you tell when a principle is merely a prejudice? When
someone keeps making an argument even though the facts suggest it no
longer holds up.
It is time to ask whether the overwhelming support for free trade and
globalization among well-off, highly educated people is more a
prejudice rooted in their own self-interest or a matter of high
principle.
OK, maybe that's too harsh. So try this: Even if globalization made a
lot of sense during the buoyant 1990s, shouldn't the troubling
economic developments since 2000 force people to modify their views?
Is it not now undeniable that globalization has serious costs that are
not merely ``transition problems'' and that these costs are borne
disproportionately by certain parts of the country and the society?
Now, I don't want to be accused of prejudice myself, so let me
stipulate that most educated folks really believe on principle in free
trade. They can rely on reams of writing by intelligent economists to
support their view.
Moreover, no one likely to hold power in our country would return us
to the days of William McKinley and high tariff walls.
The globalizers are right when they argue that too many Americans are
now reliant on the global economy for such policies to work.
But it ought to be equally obvious that the globalizers in both
political parties were too carefree when they asserted in the 1990s
that, well, yes, there are ``losers'' from globalization, but there
are so many more ``winners'' that we really shouldn't worry.
Those who lost out in this grand process would eventually find their
footing, the argument went, and government could help them make the
transition.
By the way, where was all that help?
In any case the prophets of our bright future said the United States
shouldn't worry about ``old'' industries like steel or apparel. It
should worry about leading the way in all that is ``new'' and ``high
tech.''
Having grown up in Fall River, Mass., a place whose job base was once
rooted in the apparel industry, it has always struck me that writing
off an industry as ``old'' is a lot easier for people who never
depended on it.
Maybe that's an old economy prejudice on my part, especially since my
home town has been remarkably inventive in giving birth to new
enterprises.
Still, it's not a form of prejudice to cite the statistics showing
that the sharp decline in manufacturing jobs over the past few years
has been accompanied by a decline in overall family incomes.
Consider the Census Bureau's report for 2002 showing that U.S.
household incomes had declined for the third year in a row and that
the number of Americans living in poverty had increased by 1.7 million
in a year.
The old manufacturing states -- including Michigan, Illinois, Ohio and
Missouri -- were among those hit the hardest. (Politicians take note:
These are swing states.)
The economists reassure us that the poverty rate is a ``lagging''
indicator and that a robust recovery will start lifting people up
again. But will it?
Is it not just as plausible to worry that the flight of jobs to China
and elsewhere, courtesy of globalization, has combined with big
improvements in productivity to create an economy that leaves many of
our fellow citizens behind even in flush times?
The Institute for Supply Management, which keeps some of the best
numbers on manufacturing, pleased the stock market earlier this month
with a report showing that economic activity in manufacturing grew in
August, as it had in July.
But its manufacturing employment index actually fell and remained
below the 50 percent break-even point for job creation for the 35th
consecutive month.
If supporters of globalization really do hold principles and not
prejudices, they should admit that the facts make it increasingly
difficult to say that everything will eventually get better for
everyone, and that changes in the system will only make it worse.
Worse for whom exactly?
Our tax and social policies are supposed to respond to inequities as
they arise. But our current approach seems based mostly on begging
China to fix its currency and praying for 5 percent growth. Michigan,
as it sometimes has in the past, will just have to rely on a pass and
a prayer.
The evidence suggests that we're not in the New Economy anymore, but
in a New New Economy with problems that weren't supposed to arise.
The real lagging indicator is our economic thinking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Dionne is a Washington Post columnist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kamal R. Prasad" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it time to admit some lose in global trade? |
04 Oct 2003 09:00:53 AM |
|
|
"Iguana" <dmattisNOSPAMPLEASE@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<BInfb.10942$x67.6418@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
No. It's not what we are "BEST AT", it's what we are "CHEAPEST AT".
That is the problem. I have no problem competing against 3rd world
programmers in quality, I'm very good at what I do. It's doesn't matter
how good I am if my rent is $900 a month and my competition's rent
is $30 a month. And THAT is the problem. If we all lived the same
cost of living, what you said would be true, BUT we don't, so it isn't.
True. American workers don't stand a chance when it comes to competing
with workers in India, China, Phillipines etc.. But if you understand
where Im coming from, it is the US govt's policy to strengthen the
dollar -and people all over the world aren't comspiring to make you
lose your job. Its your own govt. that's doing that.
regards
-kamal
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iguana" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it time to admit some lose in global trade? |
04 Oct 2003 04:00:35 PM |
|
|
<<True. American workers don't stand a chance when it comes to competing
with workers in India, China, Phillipines etc.. But if you understand
where Im coming from, it is the US govt's policy to strengthen the
dollar -and people all over the world aren't comspiring to make you
lose your job. Its your own govt. that's doing that.>>
I know, I put the blame squarely where it belongs.
Iguana
"Kamal R. Prasad" <kamalp@acm.org> wrote in message
news:181e352f.0310040600.58c27f49@posting.google.com...
"Iguana" <dmattisNOSPAMPLEASE@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:<BInfb.10942$x67.6418@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
No. It's not what we are "BEST AT", it's what we are "CHEAPEST AT".
That is the problem. I have no problem competing against 3rd world
programmers in quality, I'm very good at what I do. It's doesn't matter
how good I am if my rent is $900 a month and my competition's rent
is $30 a month. And THAT is the problem. If we all lived the same
cost of living, what you said would be true, BUT we don't, so it isn't.
True. American workers don't stand a chance when it comes to competing
with workers in India, China, Phillipines etc.. But if you understand
where Im coming from, it is the US govt's policy to strengthen the
dollar -and people all over the world aren't comspiring to make you
lose your job. Its your own govt. that's doing that.
regards
-kamal
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "M. Ranjit Mathews" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it time to admit some lose in global trade? |
05 Oct 2003 10:20:30 AM |
|
|
Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
"Iguana" <dmattisNOSPAMPLEASE@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<BInfb.10942$x67.6418@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
No. It's not what we are "BEST AT", it's what we are "CHEAPEST AT".
That is the problem. I have no problem competing against 3rd world
programmers in quality, I'm very good at what I do. It's doesn't matter
how good I am if my rent is $900 a month and my competition's rent
is $30 a month. And THAT is the problem. If we all lived the same
cost of living, what you said would be true, BUT we don't, so it isn't.
True. American workers don't stand a chance when it comes to competing
with workers in India, China, Phillipines etc.. But if you understand
where Im coming from, it is the US govt's policy to strengthen the
dollar -and people all over the world aren't comspiring to make you
lose your job. Its your own govt. that's doing that.
Right! The dollar is being kept high in order to attract money to
finance the deficit and in order to maintain the dollar's status as the
world's reserve currency.
regards
-kamal
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kingbarry2000" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it time to admit some lose in global trade? |
13 Oct 2003 11:50:32 PM |
|
|
"M. Ranjit Mathews" <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:2FWfb.26205$f11.10598@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
"Iguana" <dmattisNOSPAMPLEASE@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:<BInfb.10942$x67.6418@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
No. It's not what we are "BEST AT", it's what we are "CHEAPEST AT".
That is the problem. I have no problem competing against 3rd world
programmers in quality, I'm very good at what I do. It's doesn't matter
how good I am if my rent is $900 a month and my competition's rent
is $30 a month. And THAT is the problem. If we all lived the same
cost of living, what you said would be true, BUT we don't, so it isn't.
True. American workers don't stand a chance when it comes to competing
with workers in India, China, Phillipines etc.. But if you understand
where Im coming from, it is the US govt's policy to strengthen the
dollar -and people all over the world aren't comspiring to make you
lose your job. Its your own govt. that's doing that.
Right! The dollar is being kept high in order to attract money to
finance the deficit and in order to maintain the dollar's status as the
world's reserve currency.
regards
-kamal
The dollar was being kept high. It certainly is not now.
The only people keeping the dollar high right now are in Asia.
The US is not talking its dollar down, but there are no explicit market
moves to reinforce the high dollar either.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "jonah thomas" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it time to admit some lose in global trade? |
05 Oct 2003 01:06:46 PM |
|
|
M. Ranjit Mathews wrote:
Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
But if you understand
where Im coming from, it is the US govt's policy to strengthen the
dollar -and people all over the world aren't comspiring to make you
lose your job. Its your own govt. that's doing that.
Right! The dollar is being kept high in order to attract money to
finance the deficit and in order to maintain the dollar's status as the
world's reserve currency.
What is the US government doing to keep the dollar high?
I would have thought that dropping interest rates would work against
that. The US government runs a gigantic deficit and then pays for it
with extremely low-interest loans. It doesn't make sense for keeping
the dollar high.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kamal R. Prasad" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it time to admit some lose in global trade? |
06 Oct 2003 12:16:10 AM |
|
|
jonah thomas <j2thomas@cavtel.net> wrote in message news:<B4Zfb.40$Hz3.15005@news.uswest.net>...
M. Ranjit Mathews wrote:
Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
Right! The dollar is being kept high in order to attract money to
finance the deficit and in order to maintain the dollar's status as the
world's reserve currency.
What is the US government doing to keep the dollar high?
To know the exact startegies employed by the US govt, you need to hear
it from the horse's mouth. If I were to quote Robert Rubin for some
evidence [but not the strategies in itself], "if we allow the dollar
to weaken, overseas investors will rush for the exit and that will
create panic selling -which will do more harm than good. It is in the
interests of the US govt to maintain a strong dollar policy -and the
way to avoid getting into problems is to increase the savings rate."
The US govt has squeezed demand to get the USD to its current
position.
I would have thought that dropping interest rates would work against
that. The US government runs a gigantic deficit and then pays for it
with extremely low-interest loans. It doesn't make sense for keeping
the dollar high.
The interest rate is for domestic consumption. The US govt pays for
the deficit by increasing the money supply. Lowered interest rates do
result in a shifting of assets from US bonds to foreign currency.
It makes sense for keeping the dollar high to (a) finance imports and
(b) to earn more for hi-tech goods produced exclusively in the US. (c)
to charge a premium from investors wishing to invest in the US.
The downside is that it costs less to get work done outside the US
and so workers who are not in a niche area will surely lose their
jobs to less/equally-qualified workers overseas.
All said and done, if you want to retain your jobs, you need to be
telling that to your govt and not crying wolf at overseas workers.
regards
-kamal
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "harold " |
|
| Title: Re: Is it time to admit some lose in global trade? |
04 Oct 2003 03:56:55 PM |
|
|
On 4 Oct 2003 07:00:53 -0700, (Kamal R. Prasad) wrote:
"Iguana" <dmattisNOSPAMPLEASE@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<BInfb.10942$x67.6418@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
No. It's not what we are "BEST AT", it's what we are "CHEAPEST AT".
That is the problem. I have no problem competing against 3rd world
programmers in quality, I'm very good at what I do. It's doesn't matter
how good I am if my rent is $900 a month and my competition's rent
is $30 a month. And THAT is the problem. If we all lived the same
cost of living, what you said would be true, BUT we don't, so it isn't.
True. American workers don't stand a chance when it comes to competing
with workers in India, China, Phillipines etc.. But if you understand
where Im coming from, it is the US govt's policy to strengthen the
dollar -and people all over the world aren't comspiring to make you
lose your job. Its your own govt. that's doing that.
The US government does way too much interfering in the market now.
This causes higher prices for consumers.
Regards, Harold
----
"When you hear someone say that he doesn't trust the market, and
wants to replace it with government edicts, he's really calling
for a switch from a democratic process to a totalitarian one...
Tyrants always condemn and seek to replace the market process with
government coercion because tyrants do not trust that people
behaving voluntarily will do what the tyrants think they should do."
----- Walter Williams, July 2002
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tim Worstall" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it time to admit some lose in global trade? |
04 Oct 2003 03:19:55 AM |
|
|
"Iguana" <dmattisNOSPAMPLEASE@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<BInfb.10942$x67.6418@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
<<No one ever said there weren't losers. The question is are there more
losers than winners. And the answer is no.
Free trade isn't that tough an idea to understand. If we all do what
we're best at, and swap around the results, then we'll be better off.
Put that way it's obvious isn't it ?>>
No. It's not what we are "BEST AT", it's what we are "CHEAPEST AT".
If it was what we are cheapest at, then there would be no indusetry in
the US at all : all of it would be where they are cheapest.
Sorry, it is what we are best at, not just cheapest.
Tim Worstall
That is the problem. I have no problem competing against 3rd world
programmers in quality, I'm very good at what I do. It's doesn't matter
how good I am if my rent is $900 a month and my competition's rent
is $30 a month. And THAT is the problem. If we all lived the same
cost of living, what you said would be true, BUT we don't, so it isn't.
Iguana
"Tim Worstall" <tcw@2xtreme.net> wrote in message
news:825e2890.0310022358.c2da303@posting.google.com...
ybf@ziplip.com (Your Special Friend) wrote in message
news:<1214fb08.0310021106.3dc1079@posting.google.com>...
http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/editorial/6895363.htm
Posted on Tue, Sep. 30, 2003
Is it time to admit some lose in global trade?
No one ever said there weren't losers. The question is are there more
losers than winners. And the answer is no.
Free trade isn't that tough an idea to understand. If we all do what
we're best at, and swap around the results, then we'll be better off.
Put that way it's obvious isn't it ?
Tim Worstall
By E.J. Dionne, Washington Post columnist.
WASHINGTON - Except for the saints in our midst, everyone has
prejudices, including the well-educated and well-to-do. But when
upscale folks have prejudices, they usually call them ideas,
convictions or principles.
So how can you tell when a principle is merely a prejudice? When
someone keeps making an argument even though the facts suggest it no
longer holds up.
It is time to ask whether the overwhelming support for free trade and
globalization among well-off, highly educated people is more a
prejudice rooted in their own self-interest or a matter of high
principle.
OK, maybe that's too harsh. So try this: Even if globalization made a
lot of sense during the buoyant 1990s, shouldn't the troubling
economic developments since 2000 force people to modify their views?
Is it not now undeniable that globalization has serious costs that are
not merely ``transition problems'' and that these costs are borne
disproportionately by certain parts of the country and the society?
Now, I don't want to be accused of prejudice myself, so let me
stipulate that most educated folks really believe on principle in free
trade. They can rely on reams of writing by intelligent economists to
support their view.
Moreover, no one likely to hold power in our country would return us
to the days of William McKinley and high tariff walls.
The globalizers are right when they argue that too many Americans are
now reliant on the global economy for such policies to work.
But it ought to be equally obvious that the globalizers in both
political parties were too carefree when they asserted in the 1990s
that, well, yes, there are ``losers'' from globalization, but there
are so many more ``winners'' that we really shouldn't worry.
Those who lost out in this grand process would eventually find their
footing, the argument went, and government could help them make the
transition.
By the way, where was all that help?
In any case the prophets of our bright future said the United States
shouldn't worry about ``old'' industries like steel or apparel. It
should worry about leading the way in all that is ``new'' and ``high
tech.''
Having grown up in Fall River, Mass., a place whose job base was once
rooted in the apparel industry, it has always struck me that writing
off an industry as ``old'' is a lot easier for people who never
depended on it.
Maybe that's an old economy prejudice on my part, especially since my
home town has been remarkably inventive in giving birth to new
enterprises.
Still, it's not a form of prejudice to cite the statistics showing
that the sharp decline in manufacturing jobs over the past few years
has been accompanied by a decline in overall family incomes.
Consider the Census Bureau's report for 2002 showing that U.S.
household incomes had declined for the third year in a row and that
the number of Americans living in poverty had increased by 1.7 million
in a year.
The old manufacturing states -- including Michigan, Illinois, Ohio and
Missouri -- were among those hit the hardest. (Politicians take note:
These are swing states.)
The economists reassure us that the poverty rate is a ``lagging''
indicator and that a robust recovery will start lifting people up
again. But will it?
Is it not just as plausible to worry that the flight of jobs to China
and elsewhere, courtesy of globalization, has combined with big
improvements in productivity to create an economy that leaves many of
our fellow citizens behind even in flush times?
The Institute for Supply Management, which keeps some of the best
numbers on manufacturing, pleased the stock market earlier this month
with a report showing that economic activity in manufacturing grew in
August, as it had in July.
But its manufacturing employment index actually fell and remained
below the 50 percent break-even point for job creation for the 35th
consecutive month.
If supporters of globalization really do hold principles and not
prejudices, they should admit that the facts make it increasingly
difficult to say that everything will eventually get better for
everyone, and that changes in the system will only make it worse.
Worse for whom exactly?
Our tax and social policies are supposed to respond to inequities as
they arise. But our current approach seems based mostly on begging
China to fix its currency and praying for 5 percent growth. Michigan,
as it sometimes has in the past, will just have to rely on a pass and
a prayer.
The evidence suggests that we're not in the New Economy anymore, but
in a New New Economy with problems that weren't supposed to arise.
The real lagging indicator is our economic thinking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Dionne is a Washington Post columnist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iguana" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it time to admit some lose in global trade? |
04 Oct 2003 03:57:07 PM |
|
|
<<If it was what we are cheapest at, then there would be no indusetry in
the US at all : all of it would be where they are cheapest.
Sorry, it is what we are best at, not just cheapest.>>
WRONG. I've been in the IT business for over 20 years . If that was the
case this would have happened 20 years ago.
It only happened once the internet and multinational networks allowed
software to be shipped overseas with the touch of a button.
It has NOTHING to do with "doing it better". The reason we offshore is
because it is CHEAPER. If corporations could send their
entire business overseas for less cost, they'd do it in a second. If I
could invent an airplane that could magically fly workers
and products from INDIA to the US for $1.00 a day all the industry would be
gone.
Iguana
"Tim Worstall" <tcw@2xtreme.net> wrote in message
news:825e2890.0310040019.30690984@posting.google.com...
"Iguana" <dmattisNOSPAMPLEASE@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:<BInfb.10942$x67.6418@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
<<No one ever said there weren't losers. The question is are there more
losers than winners. And the answer is no.
Free trade isn't that tough an idea to understand. If we all do what
we're best at, and swap around the results, then we'll be better off.
Put that way it's obvious isn't it ?>>
No. It's not what we are "BEST AT", it's what we are "CHEAPEST AT".
If it was what we are cheapest at, then there would be no indusetry in
the US at all : all of it would be where they are cheapest.
Sorry, it is what we are best at, not just cheapest.
Tim Worstall
That is the problem. I have no problem competing against 3rd world
programmers in quality, I'm very good at what I do. It's doesn't matter
how good I am if my rent is $900 a month and my competition's rent
is $30 a month. And THAT is the problem. If we all lived the same
cost of living, what you said would be true, BUT we don't, so it isn't.
Iguana
"Tim Worstall" <tcw@2xtreme.net> wrote in message
news:825e2890.0310022358.c2da303@posting.google.com...
ybf@ziplip.com (Your Special Friend) wrote in message
news:<1214fb08.0310021106.3dc1079@posting.google.com>...
http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/editorial/6895363.htm
Posted on Tue, Sep. 30, 2003
Is it time to admit some lose in global trade?
No one ever said there weren't losers. The question is are there more
losers than winners. And the answer is no.
Free trade isn't that tough an idea to understand. If we all do what
we're best at, and swap around the results, then we'll be better off.
Put that way it's obvious isn't it ?
Tim Worstall
By E.J. Dionne, Washington Post columnist.
WASHINGTON - Except for the saints in our midst, everyone has
prejudices, including the well-educated and well-to-do. But when
upscale folks have prejudices, they usually call them ideas,
convictions or principles.
So how can you tell when a principle is merely a prejudice? When
someone keeps making an argument even though the facts suggest it no
longer holds up.
It is time to ask whether the overwhelming support for free trade
and
globalization among well-off, highly educated people is more a
prejudice rooted in their own self-interest or a matter of high
principle.
OK, maybe that's too harsh. So try this: Even if globalization made
a
lot of sense during the buoyant 1990s, shouldn't the troubling
economic developments since 2000 force people to modify their views?
Is it not now undeniable that globalization has serious costs that
are
not merely ``transition problems'' and that these costs are borne
disproportionately by certain parts of the country and the society?
Now, I don't want to be accused of prejudice myself, so let me
stipulate that most educated folks really believe on principle in
free
trade. They can rely on reams of writing by intelligent economists
to
support their view.
Moreover, no one likely to hold power in our country would return us
to the days of William McKinley and high tariff walls.
The globalizers are right when they argue that too many Americans
are
now reliant on the global economy for such policies to work.
But it ought to be equally obvious that the globalizers in both
political parties were too carefree when they asserted in the 1990s
that, well, yes, there are ``losers'' from globalization, but there
are so many more ``winners'' that we really shouldn't worry.
Those who lost out in this grand process would eventually find their
footing, the argument went, and government could help them make the
transition.
By the way, where was all that help?
In any case the prophets of our bright future said the United States
shouldn't worry about ``old'' industries like steel or apparel. It
should worry about leading the way in all that is ``new'' and ``high
tech.''
Having grown up in Fall River, Mass., a place whose job base was
once
rooted in the apparel industry, it has always struck me that writing
off an industry as ``old'' is a lot easier for people who never
depended on it.
Maybe that's an old economy prejudice on my part, especially since
my
home town has been remarkably inventive in giving birth to new
enterprises.
Still, it's not a form of prejudice to cite the statistics showing
that the sharp decline in manufacturing jobs over the past few years
has been accompanied by a decline in overall family incomes.
Consider the Census Bureau's report for 2002 showing that U.S.
household incomes had declined for the third year in a row and that
the number of Americans living in poverty had increased by 1.7
million
in a year.
The old manufacturing states -- including Michigan, Illinois, Ohio
and
Missouri -- were among those hit the hardest. (Politicians take
note:
These are swing states.)
The economists reassure us that the poverty rate is a ``lagging''
indicator and that a robust recovery will start lifting people up
again. But will it?
Is it not just as plausible to worry that the flight of jobs to
China
and elsewhere, courtesy of globalization, has combined with big
improvements in productivity to create an economy that leaves many
of
our fellow citizens behind even in flush times?
The Institute for Supply Management, which keeps some of the best
numbers on manufacturing, pleased the stock market earlier this
month
with a report showing that economic activity in manufacturing grew
in
August, as it had in July.
But its manufacturing employment index actually fell and remained
below the 50 percent break-even point for job creation for the 35th
consecutive month.
If supporters of globalization really do hold principles and not
prejudices, they should admit that the facts make it increasingly
difficult to say that everything will eventually get better for
everyone, and that changes in the system will only make it worse.
Worse for whom exactly?
Our tax and social policies are supposed to respond to inequities as
they arise. But our current approach seems based mostly on begging
China to fix its currency and praying for 5 percent growth.
Michigan,
as it sometimes has in the past, will just have to rely on a pass
and
a prayer.
The evidence suggests that we're not in the New Economy anymore, but
in a New New Economy with problems that weren't supposed to arise.
The real lagging indicator is our economic thinking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Dionne is a Washington Post columnist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim Worstall" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it time to admit some lose in global trade? |
05 Oct 2003 01:57:13 PM |
|
|
"Iguana" <dmattisNOSPAMPLEASE@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<quGfb.196$Sn1.131@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
<<If it was what we are cheapest at, then there would be no indusetry in
the US at all : all of it would be where they are cheapest.
Sorry, it is what we are best at, not just cheapest.>>
WRONG. I've been in the IT business for over 20 years . If that was the
case this would have happened 20 years ago.
It only happened once the internet and multinational networks allowed
software to be shipped overseas with the touch of a button.
It has NOTHING to do with "doing it better". The reason we offshore is
because it is CHEAPER. If corporations could send their
entire business overseas for less cost, they'd do it in a second. If I
could invent an airplane that could magically fly workers
and products from INDIA to the US for $1.00 a day all the industry would be
gone.
14 years ago I was running a small offshore programming centre. Labour
costs were only a small part of the equation. It was the only reason
we ever got any business at all of course, but there were many non
cost reasons ( ie reasons why US workers could do it " better " if not
" cheaper " ) why we did not get contracts.
You are right in one thing : that the internet has removed some of
those non cost reasons. But not all of them.
And the fact that you cannot invent that airplane is also why US
workers are not all going to be out of a job tomorrow.
It really would help if some of you learnt some economics rather than
trying to deduce it all form first principles every time. Lots of
clever people have been thinking about this for a few hundred
years....try reading some of what they found out. Ricardo on trade
might be a good start.
Tim Worstall
Iguana
"Tim Worstall" <tcw@2xtreme.net> wrote in message
news:825e2890.0310040019.30690984@posting.google.com...
"Iguana" <dmattisNOSPAMPLEASE@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:<BInfb.10942$x67.6418@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
<<No one ever said there weren't losers. The question is are there more
losers than winners. And the answer is no.
Free trade isn't that tough an idea to understand. If we all do what
we're best at, and swap around the results, then we'll be better off.
Put that way it's obvious isn't it ?>>
No. It's not what we are "BEST AT", it's what we are "CHEAPEST AT".
If it was what we are cheapest at, then there would be no indusetry in
the US at all : all of it would be where they are cheapest.
Sorry, it is what we are best at, not just cheapest.
Tim Worstall
That is the problem. I have no problem competing against 3rd world
programmers in quality, I'm very good at what I do. It's doesn't matter
how good I am if my rent is $900 a month and my competition's rent
is $30 a month. And THAT is the problem. If we all lived the same
cost of living, what you said would be true, BUT we don't, so it isn't.
Iguana
"Tim Worstall" <tcw@2xtreme.net> wrote in message
news:825e2890.0310022358.c2da303@posting.google.com...
ybf@ziplip.com (Your Special Friend) wrote in message
news:<1214fb08.0310021106.3dc1079@posting.google.com>...
http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/editorial/6895363.htm
Posted on Tue, Sep. 30, 2003
Is it time to admit some lose in global trade?
No one ever said there weren't losers. The question is are there more
losers than winners. And the answer is no.
Free trade isn't that tough an idea to understand. If we all do what
we're best at, and swap around the results, then we'll be better off.
Put that way it's obvious isn't it ?
Tim Worstall
By E.J. Dionne, Washington Post columnist.
WASHINGTON - Except for the saints in our midst, everyone has
prejudices, including the well-educated and well-to-do. But when
upscale folks have prejudices, they usually call them ideas,
convictions or principles.
So how can you tell when a principle is merely a prejudice? When
someone keeps making an argument even though the facts suggest it no
longer holds up.
It is time to ask whether the overwhelming support for free trade
and
globalization among well-off, highly educated people is more a
prejudice rooted in their own self-interest or a matter of high
principle.
OK, maybe that's too harsh. So try this: Even if globalization made
a
lot of sense during the buoyant 1990s, shouldn't the troubling
economic developments since 2000 force people to modify their views?
Is it not now undeniable that globalization has serious costs that
are
not merely ``transition problems'' and that these costs are borne
disproportionately by certain parts of the country and the society?
Now, I don't want to be accused of prejudice myself, so let me
stipulate that most educated folks really believe on principle in
free
trade. They can rely on reams of writing by intelligent economists
to
support their view.
Moreover, no one likely to hold power in our country would return us
to the days of William McKinley and high tariff walls.
The globalizers are right when they argue that too many Americans
are
now reliant on the global economy for such policies to work.
But it ought to be equally obvious that the globalizers in both
political parties were too carefree when they asserted in the 1990s
that, well, yes, there are ``losers'' from globalization, but there
are so many more ``winners'' that we really shouldn't worry.
Those who lost out in this grand process would eventually find their
footing, the argument went, and government could help them make the
transition.
By the way, where was all that help?
In any case the prophets of our bright future said the United States
shouldn't worry about ``old'' industries like steel or apparel. It
should worry about leading the way in all that is ``new'' and ``high
tech.''
Having grown up in Fall River, Mass., a place whose job base was
once
rooted in the apparel industry, it has always struck me that writing
off an industry as ``old'' is a lot easier for people who never
depended on it.
Maybe that's an old economy prejudice on my part, especially since
my
home town has been remarkably inventive in giving birth to new
enterprises.
Still, it's not a form of prejudice to cite the statistics showing
that the sharp decline in manufacturing jobs over the past few years
has been accompanied by a decline in overall family incomes.
Consider the Census Bureau's report for 2002 showing that U.S.
household incomes had declined for the third year in a row and that
the number of Americans living in poverty had increased by 1.7
million
in a year.
The old manufacturing states -- including Michigan, Illinois, Ohio
and
Missouri -- were among those hit the hardest. (Politicians take
note:
These are swing states.)
The economists reassure us that the poverty rate is a ``lagging''
indicator and that a robust recovery will start lifting people up
again. But will it?
Is it not just as plausible to worry that the flight of jobs to
China
and elsewhere, courtesy of globalization, has combined with big
improvements in productivity to create an economy that leaves many
of
our fellow citizens behind even in flush times?
The Institute for Supply Management, which keeps some of the best
numbers on manufacturing, pleased the stock market earlier this
month
with a report showing that economic activity in manufacturing grew
in
August, as it had in July.
But its manufacturing employment index actually fell and remained
below the 50 percent break-even point for job creation for the 35th
consecutive month.
If supporters of globalization really do hold principles and not
prejudices, they should admit that the facts make it increasingly
difficult to say that everything will eventually get better for
everyone, and that changes in the system will only make it worse.
Worse for whom exactly?
Our tax and social policies are supposed to respond to inequities as
they arise. But our current approach seems based mostly on begging
China to fix its currency and praying for 5 percent growth.
Michigan,
as it sometimes has in the past, will just have to rely on a pass
and
a prayer.
The evidence suggests that we're not in the New Economy anymore, but
in a New New Economy with problems that weren't supposed to arise.
The real lagging indicator is our economic thinking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Dionne is a Washington Post columnist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iguana" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it time to admit some lose in global trade? |
05 Oct 2003 03:02:32 PM |
|
|
<<It really would help if some of you learnt some economics rather than
trying to deduce it all form first principles every time. Lots of
clever people have been thinking about this for a few hundred
years....try reading some of what they found out. Ricardo on trade
might be a good start.>>
Yeah, it's about time I "learnt" something... No thanks, I think you
"learnt" enough
for the both of us....
You are a perfect example of a book educated idiot. Thanks for proving it.
Iguana
"Tim Worstall" <tcw@2xtreme.net> wrote in message
news:825e2890.0310051057.729c8e08@posting.google.com...
"Iguana" <dmattisNOSPAMPLEASE@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:<quGfb.196$Sn1.131@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
<<If it was what we are cheapest at, then there would be no indusetry in
the US at all : all of it would be where they are cheapest.
Sorry, it is what we are best at, not just cheapest.>>
WRONG. I've been in the IT business for over 20 years . If that was the
case this would have happened 20 years ago.
It only happened once the internet and multinational networks allowed
software to be shipped overseas with the touch of a button.
It has NOTHING to do with "doing it better". The reason we offshore is
because it is CHEAPER. If corporations could send their
entire business overseas for less cost, they'd do it in a second. If I
could invent an airplane that could magically fly workers
and products from INDIA to the US for $1.00 a day all the industry would
be
gone.
14 years ago I was running a small offshore programming centre. Labour
costs were only a small part of the equation. It was the only reason
we ever got any business at all of course, but there were many non
cost reasons ( ie reasons why US workers could do it " better " if not
" cheaper " ) why we did not get contracts.
You are right in one thing : that the internet has removed some of
those non cost reasons. But not all of them.
And the fact that you cannot invent that airplane is also why US
workers are not all going to be out of a job tomorrow.
It really would help if some of you learnt some economics rather than
trying to deduce it all form first principles every time. Lots of
clever people have been thinking about this for a few hundred
years....try reading some of what they found out. Ricardo on trade
might be a good start.
Tim Worstall
Iguana
"Tim Worstall" <tcw@2xtreme.net> wrote in message
news:825e2890.0310040019.30690984@posting.google.com...
"Iguana" <dmattisNOSPAMPLEASE@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:<BInfb.10942$x67.6418@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
<<No one ever said there weren't losers. The question is are there
more
losers than winners. And the answer is no.
Free trade isn't that tough an idea to understand. If we all do what
we're best at, and swap around the results, then we'll be better
off.
Put that way it's obvious isn't it ?>>
No. It's not what we are "BEST AT", it's what we are "CHEAPEST AT".
If it was what we are cheapest at, then there would be no indusetry in
the US at all : all of it would be where they are cheapest.
Sorry, it is what we are best at, not just cheapest.
Tim Worstall
That is the problem. I have no problem competing against 3rd world
programmers in quality, I'm very good at what I do. It's doesn't
matter
how good I am if my rent is $900 a month and my competition's rent
is $30 a month. And THAT is the problem. If we all lived the same
cost of living, what you said would be true, BUT we don't, so it
isn't.
Iguana
"Tim Worstall" <tcw@2xtreme.net> wrote in message
news:825e2890.0310022358.c2da303@posting.google.com...
ybf@ziplip.com (Your Special Friend) wrote in message
news:<1214fb08.0310021106.3dc1079@posting.google.com>...
http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/editorial/6895363.htm
Posted on Tue, Sep. 30, 2003
Is it time to admit some lose in global trade?
No one ever said there weren't losers. The question is are there
more
losers than winners. And the answer is no.
Free trade isn't that tough an idea to understand. If we all do
what
we're best at, and swap around the results, then we'll be better
off.
Put that way it's obvious isn't it ?
Tim Worstall
By E.J. Dionne, Washington Post columnist.
WASHINGTON - Except for the saints in our midst, everyone has
prejudices, including the well-educated and well-to-do. But when
upscale folks have prejudices, they usually call them ideas,
convictions or principles.
So how can you tell when a principle is merely a prejudice? When
someone keeps making an argument even though the facts suggest
it no
longer holds up.
It is time to ask whether the overwhelming support for free
trade
and
globalization among well-off, highly educated people is more a
prejudice rooted in their own self-interest or a matter of high
principle.
OK, maybe that's too harsh. So try this: Even if globalization
made
a
lot of sense during the buoyant 1990s, shouldn't the troubling
economic developments since 2000 force people to modify their
views?
Is it not now undeniable that globalization has serious costs
that
are
not merely ``transition problems'' and that these costs are
borne
disproportionately by certain parts of the country and the
society?
Now, I don't want to be accused of prejudice myself, so let me
stipulate that most educated folks really believe on principle
in
free
trade. They can rely on reams of writing by intelligent
economists
to
support their view.
Moreover, no one likely to hold power in our country would
return us
to the days of William McKinley and high tariff walls.
The globalizers are right when they argue that too many
Americans
are
now reliant on the global economy for such policies to work.
But it ought to be equally obvious that the globalizers in both
political parties were too carefree when they asserted in the
1990s
that, well, yes, there are ``losers'' from globalization, but
there
are so many more ``winners'' that we really shouldn't worry.
Those who lost out in this grand process would eventually find
their
footing, the argument went, and government could help them make
the
transition.
By the way, where was all that help?
In any case the prophets of our bright future said the United
States
shouldn't worry about ``old'' industries like steel or apparel.
It
should worry about leading the way in all that is ``new'' and
``high
tech.''
Having grown up in Fall River, Mass., a place whose job base was
once
rooted in the apparel industry, it has always struck me that
writing
off an industry as ``old'' is a lot easier for people who never
depended on it.
Maybe that's an old economy prejudice on my part, especially
since
my
home town has been remarkably inventive in giving birth to new
enterprises.
Still, it's not a form of prejudice to cite the statistics
showing
that the sharp decline in manufacturing jobs over the past few
years
has been accompanied by a decline in overall family incomes.
Consider the Census Bureau's report for 2002 showing that U.S.
household incomes had declined for the third year in a row and
that
the number of Americans living in poverty had increased by 1.7
million
in a year.
The old manufacturing states -- including Michigan, Illinois,
Ohio
and
Missouri -- were among those hit the hardest. (Politicians take
note:
These are swing states.)
The economists reassure us that the poverty rate is a
``lagging''
indicator and that a robust recovery will start lifting people
up
again. But will it?
Is it not just as plausible to worry that the flight of jobs to
China
and elsewhere, courtesy of globalization, has combined with big
improvements in productivity to create an economy that leaves
many
of
our fellow citizens behind even in flush times?
The Institute for Supply Management, which keeps some of the
best
numbers on manufacturing, pleased the stock market earlier this
month
with a report showing that economic activity in manufacturing
grew
in
August, as it had in July.
But its manufacturing employment index actually fell and
remained
below the 50 percent break-even point for job creation for the
35th
consecutive month.
If supporters of globalization really do hold principles and not
prejudices, they should admit that the facts make it
increasingly
difficult to say that everything will eventually get better for
everyone, and that changes in the system will only make it
worse.
Worse for whom exactly?
Our tax and social policies are supposed to respond to
inequities as
they arise. But our current approach seems based mostly on
begging
China to fix its currency and praying for 5 percent growth.
Michigan,
as it sometimes has in the past, will just have to rely on a
pass
and
a prayer.
The evidence suggests that we're not in the New Economy anymore,
but
in a New New Economy with problems that weren't supposed to
arise.
The real lagging indicator is our economic thinking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Dionne is a Washington Post columnist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Capitalist Pig" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it time to admit some lose in global trade? |
05 Oct 2003 07:02:35 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 16:02:32 -0400, "Iguana"
<dmattisNOSPAMPLEASE@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Yeah, it's about time I "learnt" something... No thanks, I think you
"learnt" enough for the both of us....
What did I told you, Tim?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Victor Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it time to admit some lose in global trade? |
05 Oct 2003 06:08:45 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 16:02:32 -0400, "Iguana"
<dmattisNOSPAMPLEASE@bellsouth.net> wrote:
<<It really would help if some of you learnt some economics rather than
trying to deduce it all form first principles every time. Lots of
clever people have been thinking about this for a few hundred
years....try reading some of what they found out. Ricardo on trade
might be a good start.>>
Yeah, it's about time I "learnt" something... No thanks, I think you
"learnt" enough
for the both of us....
You are a perfect example of a book educated idiot. Thanks for proving it.
He got that word from reading Ricardo. They talked different hundreds
of years ago. A subset of Englishmen, commonly known as "the saps",
still talk like that.
Even so, Iguana, it will be a real eye-opener for you and all of your
out-of-work buds to read Ricardo, and be educated on the beauty of
unemployment. Ricardo is an interesting character, however ancient he
may be.
He started trading stocks in 1786, and soon formulated the "slop pot
advantage", whereby he could decipher the future of 21st century
economics by simply studying the shape and lay of his turds before
tossing them out the window onto unsuspecting passerby.
That would be us. Ricardos's tosses have astonishing "air time".
Note that he remained faithful to the "slop pot advantage" as a method
of prognostication, whereas he discarded reading tea leaves after
their predictions led to a number of bad investments.
He is a real slog to read through, and odiferous, much as were the
streets of London in his time, which predates even Dickens.
I recommend this instead, which goes far to sanitize Ricardo's
prophecies, and is contemporary:
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/us_china_econ.htm
(Courtesy of a Jerry Leslie post)
But the questions needing answers here really have nothing to do
with the arcane cosmology of 18th century economics, or whether
its 21st century practitioners yet cling to archaic words.
The real questions are:
Where the hell are all these commies coming from?
How are they best returned to the slop pot of history?
--Vic
.
|
|
|
| User: "Capitalist Pig" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it time to admit some lose in global trade? |
05 Oct 2003 07:44:30 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 23:08:45 GMT, Victor Smith
<victorfsmith@earthlink.com> wrote:
Where the hell are all these commies coming from?
Your diseased brain. Take your lithium.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sparky" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it time to admit some lose in global trade? |
05 Oct 2003 03:08:49 PM |
|
|
"Tim Worstall" <tcw@2xtreme.net> wrote in message
news:825e2890.0310051057.729c8e08@posting.google.com...
It really would help if some of you learnt some economics rather than
trying to deduce it all form first principles every time. Lots of
clever people have been thinking about this for a few hundred
years....try reading some of what they found out. Ricardo on trade
might be a good start.
Economics, like computer science, is just theory. In any discipline,
theory can be used to model, at best, ten percent of what actually happens
in the "real world." Very little of what occurs in the real world fits
into mathematical models. From my "first principle" viewpoint, all I see
is the U.S. trading debt for goods--sooner or later that debt will come due.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Veronica Vivanco" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it time to admit some lose in global trade? |
05 Oct 2003 06:06:47 PM |
|
|
In
alt.computer.consultants,alt.politics.usa,sci.econ,alt.politics.economics,soc.culture.indian,
Sparky <no.spam@wanted.you.fool.org> wrote in message
<3f7f2917_4@newsfeed.slurp.net>...
Economics, like computer science, is just theory. In any discipline,
theory can be used to model, at best, ten percent of what actually happens
in the "real world." Very little of what occurs in the real world fits
into mathematical models. From my "first principle" viewpoint, all I see
is the U.S. trading debt for goods--sooner or later that debt will come due.
How do you think that debt will get paid? Goods and services. In other words
a trade surplus. Any other payment is a trick to trade real goods and
services for accounting ledger entries, a good trick if you can pull it off.
--
Nationalism is an infantile disease, the measles of humanity.
- Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Capitalist Pig" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it time to admit some lose in global trade? |
05 Oct 2003 03:05:14 PM |
|
|
On 5 Oct 2003 11:57:13 -0700, (Tim Worstall) wrote:
It really would help if some of you learnt some economics rather than
trying to deduce it all form first principles every time.
Tim, these are IT people! How dare you tell them they don't know *****
about economics? We all know that to be an IT person you need to be a
genius, after all.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Grinch" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it time to admit some lose in global trade? |
05 Oct 2003 02:06:25 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 16:57:07 -0400, "Iguana"
<dmattisNOSPAMPLEASE@bellsouth.net> wrote:
<<If it was what we are cheapest at, then there would be no indusetry in
the US at all : all of it would be where they are cheapest.
Sorry, it is what we are best at, not just cheapest.>>
WRONG. I've been in the IT business for over 20 years . If that was the
case this would have happened 20 years ago.
It only happened once the internet and multinational networks allowed
software to be shipped overseas with the touch of a button.
It has NOTHING to do with "doing it better". The reason we offshore is
because it is CHEAPER. If corporations could send their
entire business overseas for less cost, they'd do it in a second.
Then why the hell aren't US corporations pouring into Haiti??
The cheapest labor anywhere, far cheaper than India, and right
offshore too!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iguana" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it time to admit some lose in global trade? |
05 Oct 2003 03:04:37 PM |
|
|
<<> Then why the hell aren't US corporations pouring into Haiti??
The cheapest labor anywhere, far cheaper than India, and right
offshore too!>>
Poor infrastructure, lack of stability of the country, and lack of semi
proficient technical skills.
Iguana
"Grinch" <oldnasty@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:0rq0ovk67ivof6lbvsg5s22f0q9pdhq7da@4ax.com...
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 16:57:07 -0400, "Iguana"
<dmattisNOSPAMPLEASE@bellsouth.net> wrote:
<<If it was what we are cheapest at, then there would be no indusetry in
the US at all : all of it would be where they are cheapest.
Sorry, it is what we are best at, not just cheapest.>>
WRONG. I've been in the IT business for over 20 years . If that was the
case this would have happened 20 years ago.
It only happened once the internet and multinational networks allowed
software to be shipped overseas with the touch of a button.
It has NOTHING to do with "doing it better". The reason we offshore is
because it is CHEAPER. If corporations could send their
entire business overseas for less cost, they'd do it in a second.
Then why the hell aren't US corporations pouring into Haiti??
The cheapest labor anywhere, far cheaper than India, and right
offshore too!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grinch" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it time to admit some lose in global trade? |
05 Oct 2003 03:59:58 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 16:04:37 -0400, "Iguana"
<dmattisNOSPAMPLEASE@bellsouth.net> wrote:
<<> Then why the hell aren't US corporations pouring into Haiti??
The cheapest labor anywhere, far cheaper than India, and right
offshore too!>>
Poor infrastructure, lack of stability of the country, and lack of semi
proficient technical skills.
Iguana
Ah, then it's *not* cheap labor, it's the productivity of labor that
counts. What labor produces relative to its cost. Those things you
mention plus a whole lot more contribute to the productivity of labor.
So if the highest paid labor is the most productive relative to cost
-- and thus most profitable -- then jobs will be "exported" to
*highest wage* nations.
Which is exactly what we see in the real world -- the *overwhelming
majority* of competition for US businesses and their jobs comes from
*high wage* competitors in Canada, Japan, Britain, Western Europe.
Often from firms that pay *higher* wages than US firms do.
As anyone familiar with the data will know. And anyone who wants to
base arguments based on intentional ignorance of the real-world data
should please snip "sci.econ" from the followups.
All this bashing of India and China for "stealing" US jobs is just the
protectionist bullsh*t de jour. It used to be Japan, then Mexico.
Next it will be someone else.
BTW, trade doesn't affect the total number of jobs in the US at all.
Not at all. The Federal Reserve manages that (for better or worse).
As for individuals citing as evidence to the contrary their own
personal experience in their own single solitary businesses which
amount to 0% of total GDP in a $10 trillion economy, they would do
well to remember that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
And anyone who thinks trade *does* affect total employment in the US
should perhaps thank NAFTA for bringing in the biggest employment boom
in US history immediately thereafter.
But as the effects of that seem to be wearing off, such folk should be
arguing it's time now for another NAFTA-like stimulative free trade
agreement!
.
|
|
|
| User: "jonah thomas" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it time to admit some lose in global trade? |
05 Oct 2003 04:36:51 PM |
|
|
Grinch wrote:
BTW, trade doesn't affect the total number of jobs in the US at all.
Not at all. The Federal Reserve manages that (for better or worse).
If the Fed wanted to increase US employment at this point, what would
they do?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it time to admit some lose in global trade? |
05 Oct 2003 08:04:57 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 17:36:51 -0400, jonah thomas <j2thomas@cavtel.net>
wrote:
Grinch wrote:
BTW, trade doesn't affect the total number of jobs in the US at all.
Not at all. The Federal Reserve manages that (for better or worse).
If the Fed wanted to increase US employment at this point, what would
they do?
Drop interest rates and not respond too quickly to battle the
inflation when it started to emerge.
_______
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
public."
-President Teddy Roosevelt
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Grinch" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it time to admit some lose in global trade? |
05 Oct 2003 04:43:22 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 17:36:51 -0400, jonah thomas <j2thomas@cavtel.net>
wrote:
Grinch wrote:
BTW, trade doesn't affect the total number of jobs in the US at all.
Not at all. The Federal Reserve manages that (for better or worse).
If the Fed wanted to increase US employment at this point, what would
they do?
What it's been doing -- lower interest rate and keep 'em low.
Negative real short-term rates have never failed to increase
employment yet, given some time to work.
Think where unemployment would be now if the Fed had kept short-term
rates up at 6%.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mason A. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it time to admit some lose in global trade? |
07 Oct 2003 01:39:15 AM |
|
|
Negative real short-term rates have never failed to increase
employment yet, given some time to work.
Sorry, but this ad hoc propter hoc has such a neonglow I couldn't
miss it.
The largest increases in employment always follow recessions.
Proof that recessions are good for us.
Mason C
P.S. What will be the econ theory if the Fed cuts the interest
rate to zero and unemployment continues? (yes, it can happen.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim Worstall" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it time to admit some lose in global trade? |
07 Oct 2003 05:28:36 AM |
|
|
Mason A. Clark <masoncNOT@THISix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<jmn4ov8mgerg46tv7tm8bl7t8t9c3oroph@4ax.com>...
Negative real short-term rates have never failed to increase
employment yet, given some time to work.
Sorry, but this ad hoc propter hoc has such a neonglow I couldn't
miss it.
The largest increases in employment always follow recessions.
Proof that recessions are good for us.
Mason C
P.S. What will be the econ theory if the Fed cuts the interest
rate to zero and unemployment continues? (yes, it can happen.)
Nominal interest rates at zero. Yes, it can happen, and unemployment
could continue. Real interest rates at zero and unemployment
continuing ? But that's not what is being proposed. Negative real
interest rates are what is being proposed.
And if nominal interest rates are zero, yet real interest rates are
still positive, then quite obviously we have deflation. And we ( and
the Fed has already announced that it will do so if necessary ) know
how to deal with that. Print money....probably via bond purchases by
the Fed. A massive expansion of the monetary base in other words.
Another way of looking at it is that the Fed would deliberately cause
inflation in order to counteract the deflation.
Tim Worstall
.
|
|
|
| User: "William F Hummel" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it time to admit som | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
